<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">If Trump had been a staffer for a senator, he’d be SOL in this view? If that’s a good predicate for disqualification, it seems weird to specifically not give an override to vetted individuals (appointed insurrectionists)
versus unvetted-by-appointment yet vetted by prior election. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:08 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] "SSRN-id3978095.pdf" was shared with you<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The argument seems pretty clear to me. "Officer" is jargonal, not intuitive. Were I to read it charitably, I'd agree. Appointees are not elected. Electees should have more leeway than appointees ... like the
difference between an elected Sheriff and her deputies. But like all dichotomies, this one is a bit false, especially given that the [Vice]Presidents aren't really elected at all. The Electoral College process feels more like a complicated appointment mechanism
than an election.<br>
<br>
Anyway, everything that document says is monastery quality sophistry. Were the "rule of law" actually like an axiomatic system, running it forward from start to finish would be formal and automatic. But it's just not that formal. It's cafeteria/buffet style;
you can make anything you want out of it. Beware the monks claiming it's axiomatic ... and that they alone are qualified to turn the crank.<br>
<br>
FWIW, I'm not familiar with Tillman. But Blackman's positions are one reason I unsubscribed from the Volokh Conspiracy RSS feed: cf.
<a href="https://reason.com/people/josh-blackman/">https://reason.com/people/josh-blackman/</a><br>
<br>
At first, I read many of his posts with as much charity as I could. (Analyses and opinions, not so much the historical ones. He's a competent scholar.) Then I started skipping over them most of the time and focusing on the other posters that were more reason-able
(Ha!). Then I finally couldn't take it anymore and removed the feed. [sigh] I'm not proud of that. My charity muscles are fatigued. Blackman's opinions feel, to me, similar the Johns' (Yoo and Rizzo) legal justification for waterboarding. It all makes me a
bit queasy.<br>
<br>
p.s. Here's a more reliable link: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095">
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095</a><br>
<br>
On 1/6/24 10:16, thompnickson2@gmail.com wrote:<br>
> Hi, Everybody,<br>
> <br>
> I have been curious about how (on earth!) the president could not be<br>
> considered to be an Officer of the United States. After all, the<br>
> Constitution, Article II, tells us that "The President ...shall hold<br>
> office..."etc. This law review article seems to be the source I thought I<br>
> would post in in case anyone wants to read it. I won't get to it until later<br>
> today.<br>
> Nick<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ<br>
<br>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>